Quote:
Originally posted by DoggyStyle82
I see your point and I appreciate it greatly. My comments were based strictly on the comments from the article. To use your analogy from a previous post, Jesus often used a two pronged approach to dealing with issues of day. One for the aggrieved and one for the actor/observer. When you mentioned the story of the adulterous woman, Jesus first dealt with the actions of her accusers, then with the action of the woman which precipitated the need for his intervention. People often lose focus of his secondary action which was just as important. After Jesus' rebuke of her accusers, he told her to "go forth and sin no more".
It is the same with AIDs. The Church already provides for the end of AIDS transmission. Obeying God's commandments (not that I do or am perfect, but we know what the "wages of sin" are when we take that chance).
The Church is always called on to make a stand against social injustice because it is immoral. I'm not saying that the church should not be involved in the fight against AIDS. My statements are based upon how those in the article blame the Church.
Explain to me how the Church is responsible for Alijah's condition as mention in the article?
Is Jesus magnified by a Minister teaching his congregation how to put on condoms? Is that the advice that he gave the adulterous woman?. No, he told her to change her behavior if she wanted to avoid death.
Our people suffer not only for lack of knowledge, but because we are a stubborn and stiff-necked generation.
P.S. Don't get it twisted. Doggystyle is not a moralist, a holy roller, nor a perfect person. I'm a sinner too. More than some, less than others. I just like to argue the facts
|
Bruh, I undestand what you are saying. It's a no-brainer on one level; but if this was about people doing what they know is right, then we'd be living in Paradise! The truth is that me, you and everyone else is living in a fallen world and there is an Enemy out actively at work to trip us up, and keep people in darkness. Are we still responsible--yes! But, just as God put leather skins on Adam and Even after the Fall, signifying His care for them in their state of separation from Him, we don't have to give up on those who are "blind." As a previous poster stated, this disease, like all sin, doesn't discriminate. You don't have to be guilty of sexual sin to be infected, like the wife of the pastor I spoke about. There are people who think they are safe when they are not due t someone else's actions. God's will life, for everyone, good and bad alike, just as He blessed all with His natural bounty, even those who don't believe in Him or curse His name. He is loving beyond our comprehension. Everybody is not "saved" and willing to be moved by moral suasion, so I'm not necessarily against the use of condoms. It's no answer--not at all, but a recognition that this is very serious public health issue that, as in Africa, can have almost genocidal effects. Peace!